Have You Ever Terminated an Employee Based on Assumptions?

Photo Credit: Sora Shimazaki from Pexels

As employers, we may be tempted to place more significant value in feedback from highly valued, long-standing employees over other employees when making the decision. However, this approach has been shown to be significantly flawed when it comes to conducting an internal investigation, as a recent case bought before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) highlights.

WesTrac Pty Ltd was ordered to pay an employee compensation totalling $28,313.41, being four months of the employee’s pay, when they summarily dismissed an employee that they believed had taken company equipment from its usual storage area with the intent to steal the equipment.

In coming to the decision, the employer relied on two witness statements and a conversation with the accused employee where the employee denied the allegations. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) found the employer failed to properly investigate allegations of serious misconduct by only relying on witness statements and not taking reasonable steps to put inconsistencies to the witnesses (i.e. properly interviewing the witnesses). The FWC held that the employer made assumptions and relied on these assumptions when making their decision to terminate.

Employers must ensure that investigations are conducted in a rigorous and just manner including testing inconsistent versions of events with witnesses; obtaining evidence and facts; providing the employee in question with the allegations against them; and providing them with an opportunity to respond.

One of the best ways to conduct a thorough and fair investigation is to have the investigation conducted by an unbiased third party. Our HR Specialists have over 15 years of experience conducting workplace investigations. If you need help carrying out an investigation, Infinity HR can provide you with the expertise you need. Contact Iolanda Hazell on 0400 489 743 or email info@infinityhr.com.au to find out more.